Iowa

Profile vs. FBS, 2024

Farther out is better on every spoke. Dashed ring: the FBS median.

• EPA per play

  Expected points added on an average snap: how much each play moved the scoring odds.
  Offense+0.1138th
  Defense+0.0479th
• Success rate

  Share of snaps that stayed on schedule: half the yards needed on 1st down, 70% on 2nd, all of them on 3rd or 4th.
  Offense42.3%47th
  Defense42.0%46th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1917th
  Defense+1.0796th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1053rd
  Defense+0.0560th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1747th
  Defense+0.0579th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense47.3%41st
  Defense48.3%38th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense28.4%26th
  Defense28.4%74th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9234th
  Defense3.0738th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense20.9%19th
  Defense14.3%14th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense13.4%81st
  Defense17.2%62nd

Percentiles among the 134 FBS teams this season, where higher is better for the offense and the defense alike (a defense's numbers are what it allowed). The line in each bar is the FBS median. Garbage time excluded. Source: CollegeFootballData.

Drives vs. expectation, 2024

Every snap has an expected-points value: what a drive from that spot, down and distance is worth on average. A drive over expected beat its starting spot; defense counts what Iowa allowed, so lower is better. The adjusted number fits every team against the opponents it actually played, so it leans toward average early in a season. Ranks are among FBS teams.

Game by game

1. W
   ILST
2. L
   ISU
3. W
   TROY
4. W
   MINN
5. L
   OSU
6. W
   WASH
7. L
   MSU
8. W
   NU
9. W
   WIS
10. L
    UCLA
11. W
    MD
12. W
    NEB
13. L
    MIZ

Bars above the line: better than expected for Iowa.

Players, 2024

1. Kaleb JohnsonRB224 plays · +0.144 pts/play · 9th of 373 RBs
   0.60WAR0.43 to 0.78
2. Cade McNamaraQB127 plays · +0.170 pts/play · 141st of 232 QBs
   0.40WAR0.18 to 0.62
3. Brendan SullivanQB89 plays · +0.148 pts/play · 166th of 232 QBs
   0.25WAR0.08 to 0.42
4. Jackson StrattonQB41 plays · +0.181 pts/play · 194th of 232 QBs
   0.14WAR0.07 to 0.21
5. Kamari MoultonRB52 plays · +0.133 pts/play · 208th of 373 RBs
   0.13WAR0.10 to 0.16
6. Jaziun PattersonRB37 plays · +0.124 pts/play · 261st of 373 RBs
   0.09WAR0.07 to 0.11
7. Drew StevensPK17 plays · +0.245 pts/play · 59th of 114 kickers
   0.08WAR0.03 to 0.13
8. Jacob GillWR28 plays · +0.140 pts/play · 191st of 452 WRs
   0.07WAR0.02 to 0.12

By position group, against FBS

Linemen and defenders are valued as units, in points per game against the median FBS unit, because play-by-play doesn't say who was on the field. Players are valued against a replacement-level backup, so the two aren't added together.

Wins above replacement credits each play's expected points to the players involved, adjusted for the opponent, and compares Iowa's players with a typical backup; 53 points make a win. Only snaps while the game was in doubt count, so a starter on a team that blows opponents out plays fewer of them: read value per play beside WAR. The line under each player (or the range on a phone) is the 90% interval. Ranks are among FBS teams and players. How this works

What it had and what it did, 2024

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  72472439th of 131Roster talent: 724, 39th of 131 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  21221229th of 131Recruiting: 212, 29th of 131 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  55%55%52nd of 130Returning production: 55%, 52nd of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +15.8+15.816th of 131SP+ rating: +15.8, 16th of 131 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 131 FBS teams with a talent rating this season, best first; the line in each bar is the FBS median.

Talent conversion

Conversion by season

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2024

Each real fourth down is valued three ways (go for it, kick, punt) from the score, clock and field position before the snap, using league-wide odds rather than Iowa's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 11 clear-cut ones account for 0.28 of the 0.37 expected wins. The model sees the situation, not the injury report, so a call it disagrees with can still be right. Ranks are among FBS teams; 1st gave up the least.

Costliest calls against the numbers

1. vs NEBQ4 9:16 4th & 1 at IOWA 29, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−7.0 pts
2. at MIZQ4 3:13 4th & 2 at IOWA 33, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−5.0 pts
3. at MDQ3 2:52 4th & 1 at IOWA 45, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.7 pts
4. vs NEBQ3 4:30 4th & 2 at NEB 2, down 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.4 pts
5. at MDQ3 11:05 4th & 2 at MD 32, up 13Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.0 pts
6. at UCLAQ3 12:52 4th & 1 at IOWA 34, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.9 pts
7. at MDQ3 0:00 4th & 3 at MD 31, up 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
8. at UCLAQ4 4:02 4th & 6 at IOWA 29, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2024

65th of 134 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up Iowa's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7.

1. W

   ILST
2. L

   ISU
3. W

   TROY
4. W

   MINN
5. L

   OSU
6. W

   WASH
7. L

   MSU
8. W

   NU
9. W

   WIS
10. L

    UCLA
11. W

    MD
12. W

    NEB
13. L

    MIZ

What moved it, 2024

Every game starts at Iowa's pregame chance; everything after that is the field. The model's own breakdown of each game's final play splits the on-field part by what drove it, and the parts add up exactly. How it works →

• Scoreboard+0.11
• Possession & field position−0.01
• Clock−0.01
• Timeouts−0.08
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.79

Game by game

• ILSTW 40-0 vs ILST70% → 100%Before kickoff +20 · On the field +30: Scoreboard +32
• ISUL 19-20 vs ISU58% → 17%Before kickoff +8 · On the field −41: Scoreboard −38, Timeouts −5
• TROYW 38-21 vs TROY95% → 99%Before kickoff +45 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +10
• MINNW 31-14 at MINN57% → 98%Before kickoff +7 · On the field +41: Scoreboard +48, Clock +1
• OSUL 7-35 at OSU12% → 0%Before kickoff −38 · On the field −12: Scoreboard −16
• WASHW 40-16 vs WASH63% → 100%Before kickoff +13 · On the field +37: Scoreboard +39, Clock −2
• MSUL 20-32 at MSU70% → 1%Before kickoff +20 · On the field −69: Scoreboard −58, Timeouts +3
• NUW 40-14 vs NU88% → 4%Before kickoff +38 · On the field −84: Scoreboard −56, Clock −2
• WISW 42-10 vs WIS56% → 100%Before kickoff +6 · On the field +44: Scoreboard +43, Timeouts −1
• UCLAL 17-20 at UCLA70% → 5%Before kickoff +20 · On the field −65: Scoreboard −38, Timeouts −2
• MDW 29-13 at MD63% → 99%Before kickoff +13 · On the field +37: Scoreboard +44, Clock +2
• NEBW 13-10 vs NEB57% → 96%Before kickoff +7 · On the field +38: Scoreboard +35
• MIZL 24-27 at MIZ41% → 4%Before kickoff −9 · On the field −37: Scoreboard −33, Timeouts −2

Points of win probability, from Iowa's side.

Closest call

NU 14-40 IOWA (2024) - Iowa dropped to a 3.7% win probability before pulling it out.